The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-23
GENERAL MCCLELLAN.

General McClelans book is posthumous
attempt at standardization. It is labored
effort to defend himself at the expense of
others. His place in history is fixed Posterity
will not take him at his own estimate. AS
commander he certainly was one of the great
est failures in history. His military career is
a series Of quick following blunders and fail
ures. No General ever had greater opportu-
mites, and none ever so uniformly and com
pletely failed to take advantage of them. His
unsparing criticism of better and ADLER men
than himself justi6es review of his career
At this time we do not intend to consider
anything except his conduct while his army
was engaged in battle.
This matter is suggested now by Gen
eral Walkers recent book, ''The History
of the Second Army Corps" In describing
the battle Of Fair Oaks, Walker (page 43)
says: '1t will always seem strange that Gen.
Mcclellan did not feel that his place was with
the half of his army that was to fight rather
tLdu Will tudl Hall WHICH WIS not TO UStiI.
Stranger still, the fact seems to be that Nc
Clellan never was actually, in person, present
at any battle fought by his army-that is,
present upon the field, or near enough to give
intelligent direction during the battle.
We do not recall any army report, or book,
which expressly mentions his presence at any
battle, while we do recall many which note
his absence. In western Virginia it is we'll
known he was not present upon the field at
any of the engagements during that cam
paign. 1t is fair, however, to say there were
no engagements there of any magnitude. He
was not on the field at williamsburg, but dur
ing that battle personally he was at York
town, nearly days march in the rear. He
was not at the battle of Fair Oaks
nor, unless our reading is at fault,
at any of the battles around Rich
mond during the Peninsular campaign. He
was always with that part of his army
which was not in the fight. During the
"seven days BATTLE" from Gainess Mill to
Malvern Hill, he does not appear to have been
present with the fighting part of his army.
AT Malvern Hill, it is said, he was on the gun
! boat Galena in the river. He was not aetu-
ally present at South Mountain, and at
| Antietam he remained with the reserve on the
| far side of the creek. This, at least, is the
way we have read the record of his cam
paigns. If this is not the truth Of history
we would be glad to be informed otherwise.
The truth is, his army never fought a battle
as unit-as whole. He so handled it that
he never had as much, or more than one-hali
of it, engaged at any one time 1t was Tough,
and led to defeat in separate and isolated
divisions OF corps, and its commander seems
always to have been with that part Of his
army (which was not to fight"
The really great and successful generals o.
the war were always at the front with thei
armies. Grant and Sherman were always
"present for duty" when a great battle wa.
going on. They rode at once, and RAPIDLY, t,
the sound of the guns and so were enabled t,
give intelligent direction on the field. Sheri
dan did not remain at Winchester; but. when
the battle was renewed he was on the field
and not twenty miles away. Sherlxan, in hi
famous marches, always rode with that win,
of his army which seemed most likely to NEE
the enemy in battle, and he changed from on
wing to the other, from time to time. as tn
expectancy of battle shifted. May not Nc
Clellans constant and costly failures be ex
planned and accounted for in some degree, a
least, by his absence from the actual field o
contest.